Don't shoot me, I'm only the messanger. It looks like the skeptics have finally found some real numbers to hang their hats on. The article is at http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004

The data are from the CRU (Climate Reaseach Unit) at UEA (University of East Anglia) http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ The raw data is in a text file at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

There are 2 rows for each year. The 1st row has 13 columns that are the departures from the 1961-1990 normals (the "zero" on this scale. The columns are January through December for-the-month global average temperatures, and the for-the-year global average temperature.

Assuming December is +0.344 or higher, 2007 will still be colder than all the preceeding 5 years (2002..2006). The last time that happened was in 1992 (versus 1986,,1991), the first full calendar year after Mt. Pinatubo blew up in the Philippines. If December is +.343 or lower, 2007 will be colder than all of the preceeding 6 years (2001..2006). The last time that happened was 1985

57

2007-12-23, 08:31 PM

A single month, or a single year does not a trend make.

Larry

2007-12-23, 11:12 PM

Not that I'm any kind of expert, but I don't personally feel that humans can affect the climate of the earth. According to Wikipedia, 95% of the CO2 emmisions would occur even if there were no humans on the planet. That means that we account for only 5% of the CO2 emmisions. Not insignificant, but I doubt we could do much to lessen it.

There are so many systems on the planet that affect C02. The oceans absorb CO2. Plants need CO2. We as humans produce CO2 every breath we take.

Global warming may be happening, and it might excellerate as the permafrost melts, releasing more CO2 frozen there. However, more plants will then grow and potentially absorb that CO2..

Its so complicated, but I am very skeptical of "scientists" who want research money and may not always put forward the "truth".

Walter Dnes

2007-12-24, 12:02 AM

A single month, or a single year does not a trend make.
It's not a single month or a single year. We're talking several years...

2007 will definitely be colder than all of the preceeding 5 years (2002..2006). The last time that happened was 1992, the first full calendar year to feel the effects of the Pinatubo blast.
It might even be colder than all of the preceeding 6 years (2001..2006). Last time that happened was 1985.

Draw a graph of the temperature for the 10-year period 1998..2007. Which way is the slope pointing? We've come to a fork in the road, where the global temperature predictions of the solar-cycle followers begin to dramatically differ from the global temperature predictions of anthropogenic-warming followers. So far, it looks pretty bad for the anthropogenic-warming crowd. BTW, the next solar cycle (number 24) is going to be at least a year late. The current forecast is for it to show up in March 2008. Today, the sun is devoid of sunspots http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/images/latest_mdi_igram.gif just like during the Maunder minimum.

Of course, if the US and Canada had destroyed their economies by fully implementing Kyoto, Al Gore and friends would be jumping up and down today, crowing about how they'd saved the planet.

I follow the data. I was supporting anthropogenic warming when the scientific data supported the theory, a few years ago. Just like any other scientific theory, when the observed facts go against the currently accepted theory, you have to look for a better theory.

que3jxp

2007-12-24, 12:22 PM

A single month, or a single year does not a trend make.

Although Walter has reasonably responded, I wanted to also say to this that a few years on a planet that is exceedingly old is also not a terribly good indication of a trend.

The last 200 years of temperature analysis has seen major global mean teperature swings both up and down several times over. The only "trend" this indicates is that it is plainly obvious that there definitely is climate change but due to the fact that there is no such thing as a flat temperature across the earth and that natural variability is the only constant.

To go along with this info from Walter, I must also reiterate the news article from NASA that admitted to a very substantial fudging of the temperature data and that after correcting it properly, it knocked nearly 30% of the supposed increase off of the last 20+ years. So much of an impact that Al Gore's line in "AIT" about the majority of the 10 hottest years being in the last 10 years was reduced to total bunk.

Sirius Guy

2007-12-25, 01:54 PM

Solar physicists are saying we are going into a cooling trend the next 20 years, personally I prefer the warm periods, easier on everybody.

Great video on facts on global temperatures...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related

bliew

2007-12-25, 04:49 PM

Interesting video, I'm almost all the way through - but based on some of his language, I decided to do a quick google on Bob Carter, since the source of the information is important. Thought I'd post these links then continue watching the video.

He definitely appears to be rather right-wing on the political side, which in an ideal world would have no bearing on the facts of the science. However, if the claims in the above links are true, as they appear to be, I'm concerned that Bob Carter appears to be funded by oil companies, then suggests that his funding sources have no impact on his studies. If it's also true that he has little standing in the Australian scientific community, then suggests that peer-review isn't all that important, that also seems convenient ;-)

Final link, this is the think tank he's associated with:
http://ipa.org.au

I think the skeptics would denounce new findings from say, Green Peace, as being ideologically motivated, so for good or bad, nowadays the source is important. That said, back to watching his graphs and charts.

que3jxp

2007-12-25, 05:18 PM

Wikipedia is not known for being terribly objective...

Off to watch the vid!!!

jwt873

2007-12-25, 06:31 PM

Yea.. I don't usually like to quote Wiki. I do use it to find information that takes me to more credible links..

Another fact that causes me to question man made global warming is that the earth's polar caps aren't the only one's in the solar system that are receding. There is a parallel to this happening right now on mars.

NASA has observed and photographed the Martian polar cap for two mars years using the Mars Observer and Mars Global Surveyor satellites which are in orbit around mars.. They've determined that the southern cap is receding at a rate of three to eight meters per year. They've posted an animated GIF showing the shrinkage on the page below.

I find it difficult to believe that the earth's shrinking polar caps are from human activity while the same phenomena occurring simultaneously on a neighboring planet is from something completely unrelated. If there is some natural event common to both planets, then the GREAT expense we're about to face in order to remove CO2 won't stop global warming.

que3jxp

2007-12-25, 06:38 PM

Just rolled up all 4 parts...

I just can't see anything in there that is bunk! It is right to the heart of the matter on all aspects.

The thing that made me giggle was the fact that he was just as frustrated with almost all of the same things that myself and others like me that are not supporters or believers of AGW!!!

The one in particular was that politicians and politically motivated (read: money) "scientists" have no place whatsoever making scientific-like observations or comments when they (The politicians in specific) have not one ounce of real climate, solar or geological scientific education.

And as always, I love that there are still polar bears even though according to current AGW believing/selling scientists, the temperature has already been too hot for them to have survived the temperatures endured on earth less than 400,000 years ago. (I have heard this beauty of a criticism in the past and love hearing it every time it comes up.)

I suppose the best criticism levelled in the videos was at the politicians that think that science is unchangeable. That new discoveries and deeper understanding of current science is not possible and that when it occurrs, that it should be ignored if it is politically inconvienient.

bliew

2007-12-25, 09:42 PM

It was an interesting watch. For me it was rather overbearing, since I find the patronizing of other scientists reduces credibility - much as it would the other way as well. I would have preferred a more matter-of-fact presentation, but it was entertaining, I'm sure especially for like-minded skeptics. Much in the same way, but to a lesser extent, that many of Michael Moore's messages are lost because of his presentation.

BTW, I also used Wikipedia to reference the think tank, and made sure he's associated with it on their own site - so my concerns stated previously regarding his funding sources and ideology still apply, not to be lumped in with Wikipedia. He's with a right-wing think tank funded by energy companies so his comment regarding politically money-motivated scientists is hypocritical, no?

Ironically, it was the reference to Polar Bears surviving the temperatures 400,000 years ago that initially raised my eyebrows, as I wasn't sure polar bears were around as a species (although I loved his photos of them chilling out). From what I can tell, the polar bear species has been around between 200,000 and 130,000 years - older than previously thought but still quite less than 400,000 years. Unfortunately, something like that reduces both his credibility and the point he's trying to make. Much like how he points to the US Senate Committee's recent report (the 400 scientists thing) without mentioning that it comes from the GOP Minority (Republican) side: http://epw.senate.gov/public - you know, the same side that doesn't believe in evolution and other things beyond this scope.

But I don't want to nitpick about the small points; I'm simply pointing out that critical thinking should be applied at all levels, not only against those you don't believe. All in all though, an interesting watch even though I'm not convinced of his interpretation of the data; but I am getting tired of all the nature shows that have to spend the last 10 minutes being heavy-handed and turn cool animals into downers...

jwt873

2007-12-26, 11:47 AM

I too raised my eybrows at the 400,000 year reference to polar bears. It seems excessive. I googled several good nature sites and one claims the oldest fossils found were around 70,000 years. That is a big difference.

The '400 Scientist' report did come from the republican side of Congress and the author (Senator James Inhofe) leans very much to the right. But... That doesn't change the fact that 400 scientists did approach Congress and question the prevailing view. It's sad to realize that many people will be comfortable dismissing these scientists with the commonly used proxy argument that they were "paid off by Exxon" and therefore cannot have a shred of credibility.

que3jxp

2007-12-26, 12:17 PM

Ironically, it was the reference to Polar Bears surviving the temperatures 400,000 years ago that initially raised my eyebrows,

See, this is where we all need to remember to pay VERY close attention or take notes on the video as we watch it... (This includes videos from both sides of the debate)

If you go back to video 1 of 4 and move to time index 7:38, you need to quickly take note that there are MULTIPLE jumps in temperature that are more than enough to wipe out polar bears according to the AGW scientists. Specifically, there is a 4 degree celsius increase at about the 120,000 year mark so according to all of the research that was done in the last two posts, That is right in the middle of the estimated beginning of the polar bear species.

Not as much as from the other side of the debate. Those that support the hypothesis that Global Warming and climate change is all man-kinds fault are ONLY getting their money because there is a political benefit to the leftist politicians to keep the scare machine going. Neither side would be getting ANY money from ANYONE if there was no political crap going on.

Even if there is a connection between big oil and this gentleman, let us all take note that most that speak against AGW are fired, loose their funding or are ridiculed in the most non-scientific of ways such that their careers are marginalized or destroyed. This is all done in an effort to keep the big government money flowing into the AGW research piggy bank.

you know, the same side that doesn't believe in evolution and other things beyond this scope.

And the leftists in most democratic countries are borderline socialists and in some cases, almost "out of the closet" communists. In the realms of a scientific depate, I do not believe that it is fair to hold this over their heads. If one side comes with SOLID and blatantly obvious evidences of major flaws, even critical flaws, in their research, it needs to be heeded.

That doesn't change the fact that 400 scientists did approach Congress and question the prevailing view.

Exactly.

the really frustrating/sad part is that we could have 4 or 5 more years of declining or static Global mean temperatures and because the AGW movement is now such a RELIGION, many will likely contine to state with great conviction that the great warming is JUST around the corner such that if even ONE year sees an increase, the sky will once again begin to fall.

I fear that "The moving goalpost syndrome (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Moving_Goalpost_Syndrome)" is what we are about to see over the next decade.

bliew

2007-12-26, 01:22 PM

Enjoying this thread! Good to look at other points of view and research on my own!

So, I think we're in agreement that it would be nice to find some science that didn't come with any baggage. I agree in the concept of cycles and think there are many reasons for climate change - but I think just as blaming *all* on man-made effects is wrong, it's also wrong to blame *none* on man-made effects. Please link to the scientists or reports that are claiming that 100% of climate change is man-made as you say they do, as I would like to read those with the same skepticism.

Focusing on this particular presentation, when I say "interpretation of the data", how he deals with El Nino strikes me as an example of stretching the science. Now I'll start by saying I'm not a graphing specialist, so I'm going off my math degree, time I spend with financial charts and some common sense (I hope!). Is anyone out there a specialist in statistical analysis who can comment on this further?

When he dismisses El Nino as an outlyer to redraw his graph, that doesn't strike me as sound science. First of all, it's not really that much of an outlyer statistically speaking, especially since he decides to leave previous *outlyers* in place to chart his graph. Secondly, that year speaks specifically to the item we're measuring in the first place, which is the trend towards warmer temperatures - it's not like El Nino was a one-time event that happened from unrelated external circumstances (like an invasion by extraterrestrials).

To say we're going to measure whether temperatures are increasing, then ignore a year that has a particularly high increase due to a climatic effect doesn't pass my common sense test. If he wants to remove big spikes in temperature, he should also do so going back 400,000 years on his chart and redraw the lines.

Lastly, even when he redraws the graph his way, his two new lines still show an increase in temperature over the short period of time - not gradual, just in a step. Whether temperature is increasing in small increments yearly or making leaps to new plateaus, they're still increasing, which is what he set out to dispute in the first place.

Now regarding the 400 scientists, yes, 400 scientists dispute the theory, and I'm all for supporting skepticism and encouraging critical thinking. However, given that between 700-1000 scientists don't believe in evolution (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org), I'm pretty convinced you will always find 1% (or less) that have their own dogma. Keep in mind that it wasn't that long ago (I think in the 70's, anyone know?) that the skepticism ran the other way, when those concerned about climate change were in the minority and ridiculed.

Lastly, about polar bears, since they are very cool creatures, especially when covered in armour and welding their gear. I would hate to see them disappear, and I'm pretty sure they will. When there were temperatures spikes over those thousands of years, the arctic region didn't also have other pressures of pollution and development, which impact on their hunting grounds and seasonal food sources. Looking at population numbers, inuit discussions, etc. it's not looking good, although I hope I'm wrong...

Cheers!
Bryan

p.s. a few years ago I think scientists discovered the oldest fossil of a polar bear at 130,000, previously they had thought they split from brown bears 100,000 years ago. Regardless, que3jxp, the issue isn't whether polar bears were around during one or more previous spikes, which they apparently were - it's that as a scientist, if he makes a scientific mistake like that when trying to make a point, that's where he loses credibility. Those sort of basic errors, even if not part of the main message, will diminish standing with peers.

que3jxp

2007-12-26, 04:15 PM

Enjoying this thread! Good to look at other points of view and research on my own!

Good to hear! I always do as well. Debate that is well mannered is an excellent learning opportunity for all involved.

Looking at population numbers, inuit discussions, etc. it's not looking good, although I hope I'm wrong...

And in this case, you can revel in your hope because you are wrong on this one. Leftie/greenie groups in the USA have been abusing the poor polar bear for years now but the Inuit are actually managing the population VERY well and have reported an overall sustained increase in the population.

The information malarkey got so bad in the States that there were special interest groups that were trying to get the polar bear on the endangered species list and stop the Inuit from being able to hunt them. To add insult to injury, "journalists" like Miles O'Brien from CNN were running around stating that it was flat out fact that the polar bear population was declining quickly and when faced with the ACTUAL facts from the groups that are actually monitoring and studying the polar bear population, he refused to recant his reporting (At least as far as the last I heard, he had not recanted).

Frankly, if there is anything that is a clear and present danger it is that the polar bear hunt is becoming increasingly converted to a tourist attraction. Recently, the government of Nunavut increased the quota from 400 to 518 annually.

On the typical "glass half empty" side from the AGW folks, it is reported (In 2005) that 7 of 19 subpopulation groups are declining. That means that there is not exactly some precipitous drop in the overall population as the information was not stating that those 7 groups were in SHARP decline.

The one thing that is difficult to take into account is the Russian areas of the Arctic range of the pb. Those areas and the native peoples are allowed, under Russian law, to hun pbs as a food stock. Given the massive territory this encompases and the sheer isolation, it is unlikely that accurate hunting numbers are available.

Please link to the scientists or reports that are claiming that 100% of climate change is man-made as you say they do

Not a lot of need to post quotes. Just consider the following.

AGW supporters almost entirely dismiss the role and impact of the following:

Whenever these items (and more) are brought into the discussion or are asked to be properly included into computer models, the AGW folks just go bananas and basically refuse to accept that they need to accept these scientific variables.

One that is not in that list that I will single out is the recent discovery that living plant matter actually releases methane gas. And I am not at all talking about decaying plant matter but the tree or flower in your back yard that is living quite well. The total amount of methane released per plant is small but as you can easily surmise, with such a vegetation covered planet, the total aggregate volume is huge. So huge as to very sizeably reduce the % of methane that is released by industry out of the total amount that is released by all natural and artificial sources. The best estimates put up to 30% of the total methane release fully on living plants releasing the methane.

BUT!!! The report/results that is fully verified came with a clatter of "don't blame the plants for global warming". Nice. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". :eek:

Please note that there is no way that plants are totally to blame as the greatest GHG is water vapour and plants don't make that. However, it should glaringly stand and an excellent example of how little we actually know.

For reading:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/36104.php

Here you will see that there was an attempt to have the idea pushed upon us that the responibility/blame is to not be put on plants: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0111_060111_plant_methane.html

http://www.physorg.com/news9792.html

When he dismisses El Nino as an outlyer to redraw his graph,

El Nino has been a documented phenomenon fsince the early 1920s and still, to date, has no concrete explanation for their occurances. Because of this, it is not unreasonable to remove the events from the data sample when looking at very short sample runs. It would indeed be wrong to remove ENSO years from long data samples, say those that are in excess of ~50 years.

it's that as a scientist, if he makes a scientific mistake like that when trying to make a point, that's where he loses credibility. Those sort of basic errors, even if not part of the main message, will diminish standing with peers.

You will get no disagreement from me on that one!

que3jxp

2007-12-26, 04:17 PM

I should note that Wikipedia does have a reasonably good article on El Nino...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_nino

Arthur Dent

2007-12-27, 02:43 PM

Why you guys still bother with this subject! Facts do not religion break.

que3jxp

2007-12-27, 02:48 PM

Facts do not religion break.

In what context do you mean?

Arthur Dent

2007-12-27, 02:51 PM

In what context do you mean?

The AGW folks. They won't go away long after all facts are against them.